Movie Review #83:10 to Yuma
Starring: Russell Crowe, Christian Bale (need I say more?)
Rated: Rated R for violence and some language.
Type of Movie: Western
Description: The legendary outlaw, Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) and his gang have just robbed an armed stage coach carrying the Southern Pacific Railroads payroll. They kill everyone onboard except Pinkerton guard, Byron McElroy (Peter Fonda) whom Wade shoots in the belly. A poor rancher Dan Evans (Christian Bale) and his two sons find McElroy and take him to Bisbee, Arizona to find a doctor. Ben Wade is in town without his gang and the sheriff immediately surrounds the hotel. Dan distracts Ben Wade, who is captured without a shot being fired. Railroad representative Grayson Butterfield (Dallas Roberts) asks for paid volunteers to join McElroy's posse to take Wade to the train station in the town of Contention three days away. The train is due at 3:10, and they must put Wade on the train's prison car bound for Yuma. Once Wade arrives in Yuma, he will receive a quick trial in Federal Court and be hanged. Dan Evans, desperately needing money to save his farm, agrees to help transport Wade to Contention but he must be paid $200. The other paid volunteers who join the posse are Tucker (Kevin Durand) and Doc Potter (Alan Tudyk), the town's veterinarian. Unfortunately for the posse, Charlie Prince (Ben Foster), Wade's right hand man, sees what has happened to Wade, and he goes after the rest of the gang to help liberate Wade.Despite a deception to fool the gang, the odds move in their favour, and in the end it's Dan's desire to impress his sons that means getting him on the train becomes a personal battle of wills.
OK for Kids? No, not at all.
Opinion: Two excellent actors. Very violent. Some bad language. I'm going to be honest here, If you want the review of a Christian who wouldn't see this movie please click here - it is a great review. I agree with a lot of what it said. I just didn't view it all that way. Maybe I am too wordly. I just don't know. I just know I enjoyed the movie. Following is a comment on the movie from the website of the review - this person said pretty much exactly how I felt, so no need for me to write it up myself and claim it as my own: I don't believe Evans took money to kill. I believe Evans took money to escort a prisoner through hostile territory, which is a very brave and noble thing. I also believe that Evans was a Christian, but he lost his way or his faith was wavering because he lost his leg by one of his own men and didn't get much to compensate for it. I believe Evans also saw an opportunity to provide a positive role model to his son by not taking money from the outlaw and by being brave enough to escort the prisoner when others were cowards. This was important because Evans’ son thought he was a coward, and in the beginning it seemed as if Evans’ son was at risk to following in the footsteps of the outlaw.I believe Evans saw an opportunity to earn the money he needed for his family and cattle by escorting a prisoner to a prison train. Any killing he did was in self-defense and not gratuitous. Evans did not waver in his morals. Prior to seeing the movie, the previews did not provide much plot summary, so I was surprised that most of the characters were bad, though some seemed worse than others. I was going to walk out when I realized it was mostly about outlaws or oppressors (the man who wanted to keep the water from flowing to Evans' land). However, I stayed to see if Evans would fall victim to the lusts of the world like all the other characters in the movie. I was pleasantly surprised to discover he kept to his morals and accomplished his goal in spite of the price he had to pay.I disagree with the reviewer about Evans' killing so he can get the water rights for his cattle. I believe in that day and age gun slinging was the norm and shooting was either in self defense or so one could do something evil, like Ben Wade and his crew killing to steal. I believe bounty hunters in that day and age had to kill or be killed to catch their bounty and for lawmen to maintain order. They didn't have all the laws and technology to catch outlaws back then the way they do now. Also, from the westerns I've seen and not having lived during that time, outlaws didn't have a problem with shooting people to avoid capture, so it seems a necessity for lawmen or bounty hunters to follow suit. Please don't misunderstand me. I am not saying killing is right, but when you're in a war and completely outnumbered and outgunned it's a matter of survival. I think we need to remember the context. They didn't have bulletproof vests, rubber bullets, or gas canisters to use against the outlaws. If the bounty hunters, lawmen, etcetera didn't use guns, they would've been killed themselves and there would've been no order.Not that I agree with Mangold's message, but his message may be that just because someone can quote the Bible, doesn't mean he's good or has a close personal relationship with God. Paul stated the same thing in Romans 3, among other books and chapters.Overall, the language wasn't that bad. (The movie “Bad Boys 2” was much, much worse). There were no sex scenes, though it's alluded to with one character doing a sketch of another, kind of like in “Titanic.” Also, I appreciated the authenticity of the sets and wardrobe.
So, after looking over all this - you can decide if seeing this is right for you. If you go - enjoy. If not, I totally understand.
Let me know if you've seen it what you thought and if you're not going to see it - why?!
Rating (out of 5)
